| |||||||||||||
McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus]McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus]Posted Aug 7, 2012 5:59 UTC (Tue) by Rehdon (guest, #45440)In reply to: McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus] by andre47 Parent article: McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus]
That's just semantic hair-splitting. If you're the bugmaster, you're involved in Gnome development, even if you don't code a line of Gnome libs/apps. Perhaps what you meant was "I'm not a programmer", which is not relevant to this discussion.
(Log in to post comments)
McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus] Posted Aug 7, 2012 9:30 UTC (Tue) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Quite, but again another response of the same character - not to engage with the issue at all, but to try to find any tiny, arguably not even real, little nit to pick at to deflect, derail and discourage.
I have to say, on a somewhat personal note, that this seems to be André's thing - he used to be involved in the same process in the Maemo project, treating bug reports as attacks to be fended off rather than contributions to be made use of.
McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus] Posted Aug 10, 2012 23:59 UTC (Fri) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] Ah, the venerable Mr. Klapper. I remember my one (and only) communication with this kind soul; I asked him a question that got me a ban on gnome bugzilla (for trolling). Do note, that the politeness is apparently not required from developers, bugmasters and other GNOME bureaucrats; Mr Klapper's answer to polite question about implementing SIEVE support in Evolution was rather curt: Nobody works on this and nobody plans to. Patches welcome.
It's a pity that many GNOME people seem to be organically unable to do something that was quite obvious to Philip Hazel (ex-maintainer of Exim): Writing/maintaining software is providing a service (even when it's free). You need to listen to your customers if you want to learn what features they need and thereby improve your product. Of course, the customer isn't _always_ right, and often they suggest specific implementations which don't fit into the "grand scheme", but it's the input of ideas which is important. Even if they seem at first to be "wrong", I've found it's always worth thinking about them, even if you ultimate modify or reject them.
McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus] Posted Aug 11, 2012 8:55 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, the difference there is that Phil Hazel has instinctive charm and courtesy and is pleasant to pretty much everyone by default. This is a very rare trait and most people don't have it.
McCann: Cross Cut [the future of Nautilus] Posted Aug 13, 2012 1:39 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] The main difference, IMHO, lies in that Philip Hazel is a professional. The GNOME folks, on the other hand, have a long way to go until they start to match his level of professionality. Unfortunately they were handed a decision power before they got a chance to learn, and now we're seeing the same pattern repeated for the last few years: development is ruled by fiat, features are excised on a whim, many decisions seem to enjoy the quality of a revelation, dissenters are trolls, and presented use cases are dismissed (with users sometimes being told to stop trolling). Of course, the paradigms change every few years (or with every second maintainer), what does not change is the surety of the developers and the swiftness of banhammer wielded by the – very appropriately named – bugmasters. (Does anyone still remember the Great Spatial Paradigm being the One True Way?)
|
|||||||||||||